Three guys spend 46 minutes recording a YouTube video deriding me for not providing evidence about a manuscript claim I made. The problem is, if they had spent 15 seconds on this page, they would've seen where I did show that Ο23 is one of the names for the manuscript.

A 46 minute video that took 15 seconds for me to respond to, well done to that trio!

2. They seem to have a reading problem, the Ο in Ο23 is the Greek letter Omicron (not omricon or the other 5 names they gave it). 46 minutes and they still couldn't get it right.

3. One guy spent 9 minutes saying he knew about the manuscript, but his friends posted that they spent all day looking for it and he even recorded a video with them, but in that time he couldn't tell them he knew the name! Strange! What makes it worse, is that now he spends 46 minutes making another video, but somehow doesn't know it by the name I gave...? So does he know it or not know it?

4. One of the trio even mentioned he that didn't know who Brice Jones was (from the work I referenced on one of the manuscript's aliases), again, their ignorance is not my fault, funny how his friend who claimed to know the name couldn't educate his buddy about one of the world's more renowned scholars on palaeography and papyrology!

An embarrassing comedy of errors, but we thank them for the entertainment. Hopefully in the future they spend 15 seconds doing research before they spend 46 minutes making a video!

Earlier today I saw a misleading post attempting to respond to me on Apologetics Academy. Again, we were called names such "fools" and "incompetent fools" by one of the admins on the group. He stated:

"It is obviously, not GA023".

We agree, it's not GA 023, it's GA Ο23 (it's an omicron in Greek, capital letter for Majuscule texts). It's not 023, "0" being a number here. He's got it wrong for what is the 7th or 8th time. Please see the included photo from Brice Jones referring to the text by its proper name which I used. This is why children should not be involved in apologetics.

As stated, it is correct, it is a piece of pottery and fragmentary. However it should be noted that the scholarly consensus (as indicated by the references) given by Brice Jones consistently list 1 John 2:22a as lacunose (having gaps, missing text but easily filled in), and they also list 1 John 2:22b, where the text refers to the antiChrist as an omission. Meaning that what Br. Mustafa's article contained was correct. Obviously, the admin in that group has no access to these articles and considered the reference to GA Ο23 as wrong merely because it was fragmentary.

This is why adults who understand the topic and who have looked at the relevant data can understand what the scholars have said about the text. Indeed, the part of the passage mentioning the antiChrist was omitted. Therefore, the admin has again missed the point completely. As it pertains to GA Ο23, there are various epistles in that collection, with certain pieces dating as early as the early 4th century, just before Codex Sinaiticus, which again, is what the works referenced by Brice Jones indicated.

Therefore to claim that it is from the 5th century, is to not follow what the scholars who assessed the pieces have said themselves and to ignore their direct observations following their transcriptions and reconstructions. Therefore, this admin is indeed wrong and needs to actually study the subject and mature a bit when interacting with topics beyond his age.

"Oh sheikh, I've been married for year and I have kids but in the past few years I've noticed I'm not attracted to my wife any longer."The sheikh starts to ask him why? Has she gained any weight?Man: No, she looks the same.Sheikh: Did she get into an accident, did something deform her image?Man: No, she looks the same.So the sheikh asks "Do you have a hard time lowering your gaze when women walk past you? Do you have issues with pornography?"

Man: Yeah, how did you know about that?

Sheikh: "When you indulge in Haraam, when you fall in love with the Haraam, when you eat, sleep, and breathe in the Haraam, then the Halal becomes disgusting to you."

Wife asks husband: What was the happiest moment in your life?He looked at her face and said: It has not yet come.

She fell silent for a moment, then she asked: And when will it be?He said: "The day when you open the door and you will say to me ''My dear husband, Assalamu 'Alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh in our Palace in Jannah." In sha Allaah

Jesus (pbuh) taught his followers to be" Muslims"

Jesus (pbuh) taught his followers to be Muslims: (Jesus using the word "Muslim" in Luke 6:40:)

Jesus (pbuh) taught his followers to be Muslims:

"And behold! I inspired the Disciples to have faith in Me [Allah] and Mine Messenger [Jesus]; they said, ''We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims.(The Noble Quran, 5:111)

Noble Verse 5:111 seems to agree perfectly with Jesus' teachings in the Bible's New Testament in Luke 6:40

Jesus using the word "Muslim" in Luke 6:40:

This article was give to me by brother Tamer, may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

Let us look at Luke 6:40 from my N.I.V. Bible "A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher."

Hebrew pronunciation as follows (Taken from Aramaic Bible which the language used by the Jesus PBUH) Aramaic is the mother tongue of Jesus (PBUH)

"Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo."(Luke 6:40 Mentioned MUSHLIM in original ARAMAIC SCRIPTURE which they have changed in to TRAINED word in English version of the Bible)

Today English NIV Bible has changed the original words as follows.

A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher."(Luke 6:40)

(Original Text was added in the following picture)

Taken from the Aramaic Bible Society. Aramaic is the mother tongue of Jesus (PBUH)

التعليقات

Check any of the ARAMAIC BIBLE (Aramaic is the mother tongue of Jesus himself) .... Luke 6:40 I have given a picture of that verse as I have taken from it......English spellings for Muslims does't effect for this I have given exact pronunciation for the ARAMAIC WORDS..............Hebrew Scripture and Aramaic Scripture Witness name of MUHAMMAD (PBUH) was mentioned clearly in Songs of Solomon 5:16 what they have removed a person name as well in current versions of all other languages. ....... I strongly believe this some thing all Christiane's has to find you all original scriptures and open these verses for further clarification, what could lead you all to find the straight path what Jesus has preached in ARAMAIC in his ministry.